> As far as I can make out from the above, the URV proposal is in fact
> just a syntactic sugaring of the DC proposal,
It is not just syntactic sugar, in that the URV form results
in a different graph than the DC form and thus allows
for substantial compression of graph real estate, but
it is very similar to the DC form in that there is a 1:1
correlation with regards to interpretation.
> which was taken out of
> the running in todays telecon; so we should treat the U proposal as
> also taken out of the running.
I never offered the U proposal as an all-or-nothing choice.
I offered it as providing a definition of what data typing
really involves with regards to RDF -- namely, the pairing
of a lexical form with a data type identifier. That's all.
There are other ways to define that pairing. My recent
recommendation defines three (of which URVs are one). The
other two are rdfs:range and something analogous to the
DC proposal, though with slightly different vocabulary.
I have come to think that all of the proposals which require
a redefinition of the graph model, or a departure from common
practice, or which cannot be expressed *efficiently* in RDF/XML
should be rejected. That includes X, S, P, and P++, insofar
as I understand them.
Patrick